REACTIONS

I wish to compliment R.H. Brown and the editors of ORIGINS for
making the data of "Geo and Cosmic Chronology" available to your readers. There
seems to be a definite need for this subject matter and the style is quite fitting. All
too often the Genesis creation week account is assumed to record the origin of our solar
system, galaxy, etc., without critical study into the assumption.
More significant than the data itself is Brown's forthright statement
of his "basic hermeneutic principle that the books of nature and the Scriptures
should be consistent with each other." As thoughtful Protestants it is all too easy
to fall into the error of applying sola scriptura loosely to everything covered
by Scripture. In selecting his hermeneutic principle he chooses a principle that will be
neither popular nor easy. I commend him for selecting this approach.

The review article by Dr. R. Brown on "Geo and Cosmic
Chronology" is informative and puzzling. Informative in that Brown appears to be
taking a major step toward amassing evidence for an old inorganic earth, something which
has not been so boldly done in "apologetic scientific creationism." Brown cited
several lines of evidence for the age of matter using an annotated bibliographical style.
References were organized, and appropriate disclaimers were made concerning lack of
reference completeness.
The puzzling nature of Brown's paper stems from an apparent lack of
depth when he launches into a discussion of theological implications. Does Brown suggest
that these are his own selection of the options? Further, do they reflect the review
nature of his paper? Where are the references supporting these issues?
It is my view that Brown's theological issues section was not treated
with any of the rigor apparent in the rest of his article. Its presence raises serious
questions about the necessity of the "addendum" to an otherwise scholarly paper.

I felt Dr. Brown presented a reasonable approach to the too
enthusiastic expressions of some in the creationist position. Yet when I turned to page 58
and came to the word "neutral" I was caused to wonder along with another reader.
Since I hold that basically all facts are either oriented with God or against God, then
"neutral" seemed a strange word.
Then "it science is to be taught soundly" was a phrase that
led me to wonder further since quite technically "origins" questions are
formally outside of proper, orderly scientific investigations. This assertion seems
realized even by an evolutionist spokesman at June 1982 Pacific section of AAAS. (By
evolutionist Root-Bernstein: at least, from my reading of his paper.)
In short if origins are to be discussed at all in the science
classrooms of America, then students should be most carefully apprised of the fact that
such discussions are outside the purview of proper, orderly science. Rigorously
such discussions are centered in metaphysics, or as Root-Bernstein expressed it: in
statements of metascientific nature.

John N. Moore
East Lansing, Michigan

R.H. Brown replies:

I understand your concern over my use of the term ''neutral." I
intended to use it in the sense of uninvolvement with biblical specifications, and as a
means for emphasizing that there is a strong philosophical and scientific basis for
creationism entirely apart from the testimony of the Hebrew-Christian Scriptures.
My contention is that science cannot be taught soundly if such teaching
includes a one-sided view of origins. As you point out, if consideration is given to
origins in scientific instruction, it must be emphasized that any consideration of origins
is metascientific.

When the ACLU challenged the Arkansas law requiring a balanced
treatment of evolution and creation-science, they based their argument on the claim that
since creation-science got its inspiration from statements in the Bible, it must be
religious. The judge followed the same line of thought, and ruled that the fact that
creation-science supposes a Creator, makes it religious and therefore unconstitutional.
This petition arose from a misunderstanding of the meaning of creation
and creation-science, and their relation to religion. According to Funk and Wagnall's
Dictionary, religion is "a belief binding the spiritual nature of man to a
supernatural being." Creationism, as a religious dogma, involves, of course, belief
in God as the Creator. But creation-science does not do this. Why? That is what we wish to
explore.
Millions believe, and have believed for thousands of years, that
"in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). And these
millions are not always ignorant; they have included some of the keenest minds. Therefore
it is not reasonable for anyone who may not believe in a Creator to deny the possibility
that the creationists might be right. Once it is admitted that such an origin is
within the bounds of possibility, it is only just and fair to investigate the matter, and
to see if the facts of science might perhaps fit the creation model as well as, or better
than the evolution model.
By model we mean a set of criteria by which we judge which
mode of origin seems to be the most likely. Evolutionists set up an evolution model,
around which they gather an array of scientific data that they feel support their concept
of a slow, gradual development of life on the earth. Creationists set up the model around
which they arrange the facts of science that they feel lend support to the theory of
origin by supernatural intervention.
Correlation of scientific facts with the two models does not mean that
one has an obligation to accept either view. One may admit the possibility of direct
creation and admit that there is a wealth of facts supporting that concept, and yet not
allow these facts to demand that he believe in supernatural origin. He might still believe
evolution to be a superior concept.
On the other hand, since many sincere Christians believe in the
Creation doctrine, it is only fair that when their children are brought face to face with
the question of origins, they should be given a chance to know the facts on both sides of
the question, and to make up their own minds as to which concept is the most satisfactory.
Both evolutionists and creationists freely admit that their views
cannot be proved scientifically. Outstanding evolutionists declare without hesitation that
evolution is a "way of thinking," but that the facts of science cannot prove
that this way is right. The same is true for creation. Creation-science organizes the
facts around the creation concept, but that cannot prove this concept to be true. All that
can be done is to present the scientific evidence, and leave every individual to draw his
own conclusions.
Parents rightfully object to the procedure in the public schools of
presenting only one side of the question. They demand that their children be shown that
there is more than one possible mode of origin of the earth and its life.
To present to the children the evidence that creation scientists have
gathered in support of the creation concept is not religious. It is simply a
study of evidences that creationists believe support the concept of origin by creation. Of
course there has to be a supernatural Being to perform the act of creation, but a mere
study of the evidences for this mode of origin does not demand belief in God as the
Sovereign of one's life. The religious aspect of the case is another matter.
In conclusion, therefore, when the ACLU or any scientists or anyone
else claim that presenting a "balanced treatment" of the two views regarding the
origin of the earth and its life is religion, they are confusing religion with a mere
factual presentation of the evidence bearing on the two different concepts of origin. It
is only fair and just that both sides of the question should be given in an honest, open
consideration, and that the children be left free to accept whichever view they feel is
most satisfactory. They should not be expected to accept as truth what is only
theoretical. Theory may be debatable; but everyone has a right to his own convictions, a
right no one can deny. A fair presentation of both sides of the question in no way demands
nor forbids a religious view.

H.W. Clark
Calistoga, California

On page 47 of Vol. 8, No. 1, you have misrepresented me and my
organization. We are not a creationist group, nor are we affiliated to any such
group.

Paul Ellwanger
Citizens for Fairness in Education
Anderson, South Carolina